I'm Breaking Your Heart
Jerry Flint 01.28.08, 12:00 AM ET
Solving the energy problem is easy if you pay no attention to the laws of physics. That's the wonder of our Congress. To pass is easy; to achieve is something else. This is where I break your green heart. You know that Congress passed a law ordering all cars and trucks to average 35 miles to the gallon by 2020. It won't happen.
Another part of that law mandates the production of 36 billion gallons a year of biofuels by 2022. That won't happen either.
It's not that automakers from Detroit to Tokyo to Stuttgart are just mean and don't want to do it. They don't know how. Of course, they don't dare complain or criticize the law. We must all be green and happy about it.
But there's just no way anyone subject to the laws of physics and automobile engineering can get a 5,000-pound pickup, or any mass-produced, reasonably priced sport utility near that weight, up to 35mpg.
Today the 2008 Honda (nyse: HMC - news - people ) Accord (weighing 3,570 pounds) has poorer fuel economy than last year's model, and Honda is Mr. Green. That new hybrid system on the General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) Chevy Tahoe SUV probably adds $10,000 to the cost (and 400 pounds) and gets it up to 20mpg. Yes, the fuel economy increase is terrific, near 50%--but we're up to only 20mpg on the four-wheeler, and that's nowhere near 35.
The best way to increase fuel economy (and reduce greenhouse gases, too) is to reduce the weight and engine size of the vehicles. Congress could pass a law ordering that no car weigh more than 1,750 pounds (a Toyota (nyse: TM - news - people ) Camry is in the 3,200-pound range), no truck weigh more than 2,500 pounds and no engine run more than 75 horsepower. Most Americans couldn't fit in such cars, but they would average 35mpg.
We could also lower the speed limit to 40 miles per hour nationally. That would do it, too, since engines would shrink, and air resistance is a lot lower at 40 than at 60.
Or we could impose a $5-a-gallon gasoline tax, which would push everyone into those tiny 35mpg cars--and have the advantage of pushing every congressman who voted for it out of office.
If all else fails, maybe we resort to the figures-don't-lie-but-liars-can-figure rule. Measure fuel economy not by what an engine does, but what it could do. For example, imagine that every engine were tuned to take E-85--meaning 85% ethyl alcohol and 15% gasoline--and that a car gets 21 miles to the gallon on E-85. But if we count only the gasoline in E-85, than it gets 140 miles per gallon of gasoline. That's one way to boost an average.
None of these things will happen, because Congress prefers something for nothing, or something that doesn't show up directly as a consumer's fee.
Of course, fuel economy is going to improve. The carmakers of the world are testing an enormous range of systems: diesel engines; gasoline engines with diesellike compressions; plug-in hybrids that can be fueled at night at home; hydrogen engines, some working off fuel cells; and start-stop systems that turn off the motor at stoplights. But there's still nothing that gets 4,000 or 5,000 pounds up to 35mpg.
The ambitious biofuel project, to increase such fuels to 36 billion gallons a year from 7 billion gallons today, is equally naive. Right now the only successful biofuel (in this country) is ethanol made from corn. And legislators from farm states aren't about to allow imports of sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. There is the belief that alcohol fuels can be made from other crops, like switchgrass. Maybe they can. The trouble is that no one has done it yet in serious quantities and at reasonable cost.
Growing transportation fuel in cornfields consumes a lot of fossil fuel, fertilizer, water and land. Also, it makes steaks very expensive. A gallon of ethanol has a lot less energy than a gallon of gasoline. This fact is supposed to be kept a secret, in the interest of national security, but some drivers have figured it out.
The state of California is a master of the feel-good law that doesn't happen. I recall a rule mandating that a sizable proportion of cars sold there be electric. The few electric cars that were produced ran, but the problem was that they just didn't run very far, so there was no serious market. The state's answer was, "Oh, well, never mind." Other people's time and money mean nothing to politicians.
I'm sorry to break your heart. Progress is being made, absolutely. But setting impossible targets makes real gains even harder to achieve

Since it doesn't go into effect until 2020 the engine program I'm currently working on will be into and out of production by then. Probably the only effect it will have on that engine is that in 2019 we'll sell a butt load of them.

And once we're done developing this engine we'll hopefully be swamped with work developing ones that get 35 MPG for 2020.

I dont disagree that OTHER government mandates are interfering with developing vehicles that get better fuel economy, ("safety" and emissions equipment) but the guy is wrong about a lot of things.

the 2008 civic is RATED at lower mpg in 2008 because of a change in the way they come up with the number, not because it gets worse mileage

electric vehicles are NOT limited by demand and they have never been. They are limited by the automakers. There has always been a demand for them, but car makers refuse to make them in any quantity - if you only build 100 of them OF COURSE they are going to be expensive/not profitable. If you knew anything about the GM EV1, it was a successful car ESPECIALLY for its day - and it ran on lead acid batteries- IIRC capable of an 80 mile round trip WITH the A/C on.Toyota had a fleet of electric RAV4s in california that were driving farther than that

If you think 80 mile round trip isnt enough for most people, think of a standard car lease today at 10,500 miles per year. that works out tobe something like 30 miles per day. Well within capability of even an electric designed 15 years ago (EV1)

Unfortunately this is one of those areas where government is going to have to force innovation ahead of the free market.

THe EV1 was heavilly subsidized by GM and would have become a liability to leave in the public's hands. :/

IMHO, the eagerly awaited Volt is going to be a big hit with many people - a plug in EV with a hybrid system for extended range when your batteries run low. I agree that the government is going to have to force the issue - but not so much the innovation - the general public is not ready to buy the current round of high-fuel economy vehicles. The reason we have big, gas guzzling SUVees is because people want them.

As soon as our government takes a step and realizes the automakers sell what people demand and also start getting shuttled around D.C. in a compact car, I'll back what they want.

THe EV1 was heavilly subsidized by GM and would have become a liability to leave in the public's hands. :/

IMHO, the eagerly awaited Volt is going to be a big hit with many people - a plug in EV with a hybrid system for extended range when your batteries run low. I agree that the government is going to have to force the issue - but not so much the innovation - the general public is not ready to buy the current round of high-fuel economy vehicles. The reason we have big, gas guzzling SUVees is because people want them.

As soon as our government takes a step and realizes the automakers sell what people demand and also start getting shuttled around D.C. in a compact car, I'll back what they want.

If by "subsidized" you mean the cost of developing a brand new vehicle, then I guess so... But Im not sure thats the right use of the word. If they would have put the car into production, then the costs would have blah blah blah... you know where Im going with this. As for liability, theres still more energy potential in a tank of gasoline...

By "government forcing innovation" I mean the gov will force car makers to come up with new or more effecient products/designs (invent/innovate), because they would only do it on their own when it is too late.
As for demand drive innovation, at least with US car makers there is often a hyoooge lag time. All you need to do is look at the sales of asian compact sedans and subcompacts over the past couple years. Hell the best selling car is again the camry(?)-fuel effecient/good value/compact. Truth is domestic car makers are only interested in profit per vehicle anymore, and they will die that way.

If by "subsidized" you mean the cost of developing a brand new vehicle, then I guess so... But Im not sure thats the right use of the word. If they would have put the car into production, then the costs would have blah blah blah... you know where Im going with this. As for liability, theres still more energy potential in a tank of gasoline...

By "government forcing innovation" I mean the gov will force car makers to come up with new or more effecient products/designs (invent/innovate), because they would only do it on their own when it is too late.
As for demand drive innovation, at least with US car makers there is often a hyoooge lag time. All you need to do is look at the sales of asian compact sedans and subcompacts over the past couple years. Hell the best selling car is again the camry(?)-fuel effecient/good value/compact. Truth is domestic car makers are only interested in profit per vehicle anymore, and they will die that way.

You can make more ethanol from an acre of hemp than corn. Far more. And it grows right back in a few months. Like a weed, which is probably why they called it that in the first place....

Legalize hemp production! Oh wait, we can't do that, that would hurt big oil..... And Geo. W.... And the ignorant repub's that support him.........

Watch the documentary, "Who killed the electric car?" and learn a thing or two about what really went down.

If by "subsidized" you mean the cost of developing a brand new vehicle, then I guess so... But Im not sure thats the right use of the word. If they would have put the car into production, then the costs would have blah blah blah... you know where Im going with this. As for liability, theres still more energy potential in a tank of gasoline...

By "government forcing innovation" I mean the gov will force car makers to come up with new or more effecient products/designs (invent/innovate), because they would only do it on their own when it is too late.
As for demand drive innovation, at least with US car makers there is often a hyoooge lag time. All you need to do is look at the sales of asian compact sedans and subcompacts over the past couple years. Hell the best selling car is again the camry(?)-fuel effecient/good value/compact. Truth is domestic car makers are only interested in profit per vehicle anymore, and they will die that way.

By subsidized, he meas the EV1 cost $xx,xxx more to build, than it was sold for. It was a small scale experiment, not designed to make money, so they take the hit. Even in mass production, the costs don't work out.

The camry is not a compact car, sorry, try again.

Vehicle to vehicle, there is no significant difference between Asian, European, and American vehicle MPGs.

What is in everyones heads are things like old Civics, which were designed for the japanese market and sold here. If we actually sold JDM or EDM vehciles here, yes, they get better MPG, because they are small and low power.

Japanese manufacturers now design their cars for the US market which wants bigger and more power. The US Accord is not sold in Japan, the japanese version is smaller with smaller engines.

Keep on getting learning from watching TV, and leave the design of vehicles to us.

Looks like some reading comprehension trouble there... I am endorsing hemp and commenting on a documentary film that discusses the history of the electric car..... Don't see the word 'design' anywhere in my post....

Just because you design cars doesn't mean that you're qualified to invent my words.....

By subsidized, he meas the EV1 cost $xx,xxx more to build, than it was sold for. It was a small scale experiment, not designed to make money, so they take the hit. Even in mass production, the costs don't work out.

The camry is not a compact car, sorry, try again.

Vehicle to vehicle, there is no significant difference between Asian, European, and American vehicle MPGs.

What is in everyones heads are things like old Civics, which were designed for the japanese market and sold here. If we actually sold JDM or EDM vehciles here, yes, they get better MPG, because they are small and low power.

Japanese manufacturers now design their cars for the US market which wants bigger and more power. The US Accord is not sold in Japan, the japanese version is smaller with smaller engines.

Uhhhhh, the US Accord is sold in Japan (Honda Inspire).

The EV1 was "subsidized" because it was small scale. You are assuming it would have lost money in mass production. The car was created AND discontinued because of the political climate of the time. Think really really hard about the cost difference between a gasoline powertrain and an electric one.

There is very "little difference" between asian and US vehicle mpg TODAY. US cars are catching up but the standard is set. See my 'lag time' comment above.

The EV1 was "subsidized" because it was small scale. You are assuming it would have lost money in mass production. The car was created AND discontinued because of the political climate of the time. Think really really hard about the cost difference between a gasoline powertrain and an electric one

Think really really hard about the cost/weight/energy density difference of electric vs. gasoline back in the EV1's day.

The car was NOT discontinued for any political reason; the car was a lease and was expected to be returned at the end. It was also heavilly subsidized by GM - the drivers were driving a $100K ev for a tiny monthly payment.

Fact of the matter is this: the EV1 was designed to have a limited lifespan, reflected by the lease. GM brought back the cars and destroyed them because there was no merit in keeping them going. Also, if GM would've let the owners keep their EV1's, there is a very good chance GM would be sued when a EV1 (not being properly maintained) hurt someone.

Not worth the risk.

What I find incredibly frustrating and funny at the same time is that GM is still viewed as some giant corporate monster only interested in making a profit. Last time I checked, that was the main reason most businesses are still in business.

"Who killed the electric car" is just a propaganda film by a bunch of whiny liberals that were pissed GM took away their toys and their ability to be smug with owning an EV.
Moreso, GM is close to having a plug-in hybrid in production. This is a vehicle that can give you 40 miles of EV-only operation AND a gasoline engine to extend your range, or save your ass if you aren't able to get a full battery charge while plugged in. The best of both worlds, but most people are too stubborn to concede GM the point.

Amazing also taht after GM stated they would produce a plug-in hybid, LORDGODKINGtoyota quickly rushed to press with a similar "US TOO!" announcement.

Think really really hard about the cost/weight/energy density difference of electric vs. gasoline back in the EV1's day.

The car was NOT discontinued for any political reason; the car was a lease and was expected to be returned at the end. It was also heavilly subsidized by GM - the drivers were driving a $100K ev for a tiny monthly payment.

Fact of the matter is this: the EV1 was designed to have a limited lifespan, reflected by the lease. GM brought back the cars and destroyed them because there was no merit in keeping them going. Also, if GM would've let the owners keep their EV1's, there is a very good chance GM would be sued when a EV1 (not being properly maintained) hurt someone.

Not worth the risk.

What I find incredibly frustrating and funny at the same time is that GM is still viewed as some giant corporate monster only interested in making a profit. Last time I checked, that was the main reason most businesses are still in business.

"Who killed the electric car" is just a propaganda film by a bunch of whiny liberals that were pissed GM took away their toys and their ability to be smug with owning an EV.
Moreso, GM is close to having a plug-in hybrid in production. This is a vehicle that can give you 40 miles of EV-only operation AND a gasoline engine to extend your range, or save your ass if you aren't able to get a full battery charge while plugged in. The best of both worlds, but most people are too stubborn to concede GM the point.

Amazing also taht after GM stated they would produce a plug-in hybid, LORDGODKINGtoyota quickly rushed to press with a similar "US TOO!" announcement.

Amazing what some poeple think left to their own little world.

Wow man... Very interesting.

I wish you could stop calling liberals "whiny" though. I am a progressive and pretty liberal and there's nothing whiny about me. I just want solutions to the damage we are doing to our ecology and economy, and I believe we all should get healthcare, just like all the other industiralized nations of the world.

I kind of like the whole hydrogen and fuel cell thing, but don't know diddly about it, but the way I see it, if we go with hydrogen, mpg becomes immaterial, doesn't it? Please... Enlighten me. :dunie:

I wish you could stop calling liberals "whiny" though. I am a progressive and pretty liberal and there's nothing whiny about me. I just want solutions to the damage we are doing to our ecology and economy, and I believe we all should get healthcare, just like all the other industiralized nations of the world.

I kind of like the whole hydrogen and fuel cell thing, but don't know diddly about it, but the way I see it, if we go with hydrogen, mpg becomes immaterial, doesn't it? Please... Enlighten me. :dunie:

I didn't make myself clear - I don't think all liberals are whiny, just that the people that feel wronged by GM taking their cars back. Liberal isn't always a bad thing to me either.

Fuel economy with hydrogen will still be an issue, if only because it will involve processing another resource to get it. Just like plug in hybrids seem cleaner, emissions and energy-wise, but it also depends on where the energy is coming from. i.e. coal-burning powerplant w/o scrubbers?

also, forgot to add that I do not believe in public healthcare here, if not only because I do not have faith in my government (Democratic or Republican led) to run it efficiently. I also see private health care booming if public healthcare becomes the norm. My thoughts being, public healthcare will be shitilly run and the people that can afford it will pay extra for the private care (along with the increased taxes to run the public program).

I believe in need-based government subsidized healthcare, because it would be better than no health care for those who cant afford it.

I also admit that our current state of healthcare isn't the best, but I do not believe making it public is the solution - I don't know what is the solution, but I don;t think that is it. :/